Speaking physics the ball had to have hit the rim

[markketch]

Because that is an absolutely terrible idea. In fact, it is positively the worst idea about what to do about blown calls.

So why do they review other plays? So you're against video replay in every instance?

It would be just as burdensome, momentum killing, and game delaying as a full blown replay challenge system, but with none of the fairness.

So then there should be no video replay. Also, how is it not fair? If anything, it contributes to fairness because the call would be correctly made as a result of the review.

In fact, it would add to the confusion and the complaints about officiating. People would complain not only about the call, but about how sure the refs were of the call in order to demand a jumpball or not.

I don't see how that adds to the confusion or would increase complaints.  They'd be ensuring that the calls were correctly made. How often do plays like this occur? very rarely.

What sorts of questionable calls should get jumpballs?

Tipped balls where possession cannot be determined, and also when a determination on a shot clock violation cannot be made.  That's a very small adjustment to the rule.

[GeoDim]

Ummmm, I am not operating under my opinion that it hit the rim, I am operating under the FACT that the REFS SAID IT HIT THE RIM!

No, it was the referees opinion that it hit the rim.  I've still yet to see conclusively that the ball hit the rim, thus my opinion is that it did not.  Just because the officials ruled it one way does not mean it's a "fact".  2+2 = 4 is a fact.  The ball hitting or not hitting the rim is an opinion.  There's a big difference. Show me the ball hitting the rim, then it's a fact.  An officials opinion is just that, an opinion.

If you really want to get into semantics here, he never said that it was a FACT that the ball hit the rim.  He said that it was a FACT that the refs said it hit the rim.  You've just argued with him about something that he never said.

[markketch]

thats great and all, but your opnion doesn't matter, nor does anyone else's but the three guys on the floor. They got togeter and said it hit the rim. I agree with them, but who cares?

They got together and made thier call, outside opnions don't matter.

This is a message board where we get to discuss opinions, so yes, my opinion does matter.  Thanks.

[markketch]

If you really want to get into semantics here, he never said that it was a FACT that the ball hit the rim.  He said that it was a FACT that the refs said it hit the rim.  You've just argued with him about something that he never said.

He's repeatedly said that the ball hit the rim.

[markketch]

 The fact that they had to huddle doesn't mean that it should be a jump ball. Someone had a good enough view to overrule whoever blew his whistle.

No, but the fact that they huddled means there was obviously some confusion.  This would put them at two places: (1)If an official strongly believes one way or the other, verify via video. (2) If no agreement can be made, then jump ball.

[GeoDim]

If you really want to get into semantics here, he never said that it was a FACT that the ball hit the rim.  He said that it was a FACT that the refs said it hit the rim.  You've just argued with him about something that he never said.

He's repeatedly said that the ball hit the rim.

You missed the point entirely.  WOOSH!

[markketch]

You missed the point entirely.  WOOSH!

No, I didn't.  It just wasn't a very good point.

[crownsy]

thats great and all, but your opnion doesn't matter, nor does anyone else's but the three guys on the floor. They got togeter and said it hit the rim. I agree with them, but who cares?

They got together and made thier call, outside opnions don't matter.

This is a messageboard where we get to discuss opinions, so yes, my opinion does matter.  Thanks.

are you trying to be arugmentitive or just misreading posts?

did you not see where i said no one's opnion, including mine that hit the rim matters? I was making a point, it does not matter that you or I think the ball did or didn't hit the rim. the officals on the court did the right thing, got together, and made thier call. end of story, we don't need to invent some new replay rule or jump ball situation because you think you had a better read on it than the guys on the court.

the three offcials got together, and two clearly said they saw it hit the rim ( you could see them talking and nodding) and thus they made the call. Thats how its supposed to work, regardless of the outcome of the call. I have no problems with how the system works in this case, the same way i have no problem with umpire conferances in baseball without replay.

make yoru call and move on, thats why your the officals.

Now the quaility of NBA officating is a whole nother part of it...

[BballTim]

 The fact that they had to huddle doesn't mean that it should be a jump ball. Someone had a good enough view to overrule whoever blew his whistle.

No, but the fact that they huddled means there was obviously some confusion.  This would put them at two places: (1)If an official strongly believes one way or the other, verify via video. (2) If no agreement can be made, then jump ball.

  One ref probably had a better view than the guy who made the initial call. I could see going to video if all three guys said that they didn't see what happened but otherwise it's not necessary.

[DivingCowens]

You missed the point entirely.  WOOSH!

No, I didn't.  It just wasn't a very good point.

No, you most certainly did.  TP Geo, for being able to read and whatnot

[markketch]

are you trying to be arugmentitive or just misreading posts?

did you not see where i said no one's opnion, including mine that hit the rim matters? I was making a point, it does not matter that you or I think the ball did or didn't hit the rim. the officals on the court did the right thing, got together, and made thier call. end of story, we don't need to invent some new replay rule or jump ball situation because you think you had a better read on it than the guys on the court.

1. Your post wasn't very clear.
2. This is still a discussion board, so if we want to talk about adjustments to rules then we may certainly do so.

[dlpin]

Because that is an absolutely terrible idea. In fact, it is positively the worst idea about what to do about blown calls.

So why do they review other plays? So you're against video replay in every instance?

It would be just as burdensome, momentum killing, and game delaying as a full blown replay challenge system, but with none of the fairness.

So then there should be no video replay. Also, how is it not fair? If anything, it contributes to fairness because the call would be correctly made as a result of the review.

In fact, it would add to the confusion and the complaints about officiating. People would complain not only about the call, but about how sure the refs were of the call in order to demand a jumpball or not.

I don't see how that adds to the confusion or would increase complaints.  They'd be ensuring that the calls were correctly made. How often do plays like this occur? very rarely.

What sorts of questionable calls should get jumpballs?

Tipped balls where possession cannot be determined, and also when a determination on a shot clock violation cannot be made.  That's a very small adjustment to the rule.

I didn't say anything about video replay. I said it about your idea of how calls where there is doubt should be handled by a jump ball.

I am not opposed to a challenge replay system. But I think it would extend the games even more, and would provide very, very little in terms of actual solving officiating mistakes. Most of the problematic calls are judgment calls which would not be affected by replay, and really only solved by more strict guidelines from the league.

[markketch]

I didn't say anything about video replay. I said it about your idea of how calls where there is doubt should be handled by a jump ball.

I'm talking about shot clock calls where they cannot arrive at a conclusion.  The intention is not to just jump it up because they're not sure, rather they'd have the liberty to get the call correct via video. If the video is inconclusive, then a jump ball makes sense.

If they can't determine who should have possession, what do you want them to do?

[DivingCowens]

1. Your post wasn't very clear.

****, I hope you are not talking about my post.  How much clearer could it be when I enlarge the font and bold it on the words that are supposed to have emphasis.  Too funny.  What are you, a Magic troll?

If anyone's posts aren't clear, it's yours.  You keep talking about how it "should have been" a jump ball, but then you take issue when I suggest that you mean to say that they should change the rules in a playoff game.  That's exactly what you said.  If you "think" it should have been a jump ball, then you "think" that in the last minute of a playoff game 5, the refs should have overruled the actual rule book and called a jump. 

If you are saying have replay next season, great, discuss.  But that is NOT what you said.  You said... tonight... that play should have resulted in a jump ball.

[GeoDim]

I didn't say anything about video replay. I said it about your idea of how calls where there is doubt should be handled by a jump ball.

I'm talking about shot clock calls where they cannot arrive at a conclusion.  The intention is not to just jump it up because they're not sure, rather they'd have the liberty to get the call correct via video. If the video is inconclusive, then a jump ball makes sense.

If they can't determine who should have possession, what do you want them to do?

I understand what you're saying, but your point is flawed.

The call on the court was a shot clock violation.  This was overturned.  They would not overturn a call based on opinion.  They must have seen it hit the rim, or else they would have just stayed with what was called on the court.  You're fabricating a situation that didn't take place.  This is not as complicated as you're making it out to be.